Applied Ethics in Internet Research

Edited by

May Thorseth

Q PfO^p^*^ 2
ftr
Applied QVitcs cu^uj

/pnnW »'
/vj
AjortAJcty by

Programme for Applied Ethics

Publication Series No. 1
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
 Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher

Chris Mann

Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21
researcher

Within the social sciences codes of ethics have developed over time. Gradu-
ally informal arrangements between researcher and participants about confi-
dentiality of data and respect for privacy have become highly formalised (see
discussion in Adler and Adler, 2001). There are now various kinds of ethical
'rule-books' such as discipline based professional codes and funding body re-
quirements. A very influential example of organisations set up to give ethical
guidelines is the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the USA. Following
publicity about some notorious research studies, such as, the Milgram experi-
ment in 1965 (ibid. p. 517), the American government decided that individual
researchers would no longer decide for themselves about what would be an
ethical way to act in a given situation. Instead there would be public discus-
sions about the rights and wrongs of individual research studies. Institutional
Review Boards, which have become very common since 1990, are concerned
w i t h the moral good of the country, the power of law, and the legal protection
of universities and other research centres. To meet their mandate, IRBs and
other forms of ethical review boards need to work with well-defined 'duty' or
rule driven ethics. For many, the over-riding duty is the directive not to harm
others. Indeed, not harming others is the core value in social science research
and has been incorporated into guidelines for ethical practice. These guide-
lines include such rules as not invading privacy, briefing participants about the
nature of the research and protecting them from risks associated with the re-
search.
The question raised by Internet research is whether such well established
ethics codes are appropriate for work online. Some commentators feel that
there is a tension between traditional guidelines for research and the new tech-
nologies.

31
 Chris Mann

Should we really expect that the normative vocabulary that has served us
in more traditional communities - including scientific communities - w i l l au-
tomatically serve us equally well in their electronic counterparts? (Jones,
1994)
This question is important because Internet research has certain distinc-
tive features that may increase the challenge of acting ethically - features such
as:
• the blurred distinction between public and private domains
• the ease of anonymity or pseudonymity
• the geographical dispersal of users
• the ability to record and archive communications without consent
• the ability to track participants using the technology
In the following six sections we shall raise the ethical problems and debates
associated with these features and suggest possible ways forward for research-
ing ethically online.
1. Ethical issues linked to the focus of research on the Internet
2. Ethical issues linked to using the Internet as a tool to generate data
3. Key ethical debates
4. Assessment of risk in Internet research
5. The way forward?
6. Conclusions
We w i l l begin by looking at possible ethical issues that are raised by choosing
to focus research on aspects o f the Internet and then we w i l l turn to ethical is-
sues associated with using the Internet as a tool for research regardless o f the
research focus.

1 Ethical issues linked to the focus of research on the Internet

Researching Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)

A large body of literature focuses on Computer Mediated Communication
(CMC) (see Mann and Stewart, 2000). C M C refers to the ways we communi-
cate using Internet technology - using email or chat rooms for instance. CMC
allows us to investigate human communication when there are limitations - or
perhaps opportunities? - in terms of having no visual clues about the people
we are communicating with. In this area research questions might ask: How
do people communicate when they can't see or hear each other? How do rela-
tionships flourish when immediate evidence of gender or age or ethnicity is
not getting in the way? How does the way something is written - or how it is
read - trigger anger or affection or agreement/disagreement between people?
The Internet may also be a good location for forms o f interaction that are diffi-
 I
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher

that has served us cult to get access to in the embodied world. For instance, the Internet proved a
lunities - w i l l au- good site for studying the transmission of rumours - because they are passed
lterparts? (Jones, round newsgroups and chatrooms in a text form that is easily accessed. On the
face of it analysis, such as discourse analysis, of the written text produced by
is certain distinc- C M C is fairly innocuous research in terms of ethics. But the research ques-
tly - features such tions above remind us that communication between humans links directly to
relationships and hence our deepest feelings - suggesting that, in some cir-
mains cumstances, ethical issues w i l l arise (see debates in section 3).

Studies of virtual communities

hout consent A second area of research focusing on the Internet is the study of online
worlds, both fantasy worlds and also worlds of shared experience or interests
lems and debates (see Mann and Stewart, 2000). Life online gives us an unprecedented opportu-
vard for research- nity to explore the ways humans create and maintain culture. Researchers
have asked if relationships in the virtual world, away from many of the rules
nternet and norms o f the embodied world, w i l l be different. Online we are not just
generate data without a teacher or parent - or policeman! - to insist on rules - we are also
without our bodies and, if we choose it, we are without our histories. Some
online communities have already developed their own norms and laws that
may, or may not, echo those of the embodied world. But there are ethical is-
sues here. If some online venues A R E 'separate' worlds which can apparently
aised by choosing reject many real life moral norms - is it a case o f 'anything goes' for the re-
turn to ethical is- searcher too? If researchers as ethnographers sink themselves into the virtual
t regardless of the 'culture' may they feel free to lose moral scruples - perhaps raiding the virtual
world to plunder data if they can get away w i t h it? A n d how should a re-
searcher act in an online world where there A R E newly formed rules? Among
other things chat rooms or newsgroups might require incomers to declare
themselves and their business. Or they might share a tacit understanding - a
Internet
group culture - that sets a value on openness and mutual trust. Does the re-
searcher as moral agent adopt the rules of that online world? For instance, if a
certain newsgroup exists so that people can open up and share their thoughts
i Communication
and feeling about a particular issue - is the researcher morally obliged to do so
ays we communi-
too? Researchers conducting C M C might take different positions in the three
br instance. C M C
debates discussed in section 3 depending on their views about this.
ire limitations - or
about the people
s might ask: H o w The impact of the Internet use on everyday life
iier? H o w do rela- A wide range of disciplines such as sociology, psychology, law, politics and
ige or ethnicity is health research have looked at the impact of Internet use on everyday life. Just
itten - or how it is to give an idea of the scope of work that has been done here is an overview of
: between people? work that has been of interest to psychologists:
;tion that are diffi-

33
 Chris Mann Generating

• group dynamics online - conformity, polarization, conflict, co-opera- ward here is to use
tion ered about people
• experimenting with online personae in MUDS and MOOS itself.
• psychology of aggression online Researchers
• interpersonal relationships online - friendships/romance that does not repre
• psychological impact of online pornography etc no access to the Ir
• personal 'impression management' - personal Web pages etc quiry would be mo
• impact of Internet use on state of health - Internet addiction information poor -
• support/altruism on the Net - especially with stigmatised groups two.
• gender roles, stereotypes, conflicts on the Internet
Experiments
Research focusing on the impact of the Internet may be conducted using tradi- At this point in tin
tional methods - or using online methods. Both qualitative and quantitative re- good science - and
search methods in conventional research have a history of ethical challenges - life laboratory work
and ethical precepts - that have been developed over time (see Mann and (Binbaum, 2000).
Stewart, 2000). We shall now turn to ethical issues that are raised once we like schematic imag
move these traditional research methods online. laboratory work eve
answers when respo
'responses were due
2 Ethical issues linked to using the Internet as a tool to generate effect of experimenta
It has also been
data
ethical than face-to
Researchers may use the Internet as a tool to generate data on a wide range of obvious source of c<
issues in many subject areas. In practical terms the Internet can be used di- the researcher. The
rectly - by asking participants to respond electronically to research queries. It an experiment even
can also be used indirectly by gathering ongoing or archival messages or rewarding. So to lose
'posts' arising from chat rooms or newsgroups. 'nontrivial benefit of

Survey approaches
Qualitative interview
Given that only approximately 0.01% of the world's population were online at The exact opposite
the start of 2000, the patchiness of Internet access has clear implications for into play when consi
research approaches that seek representative sampling. In statistical terms ing. In qualitative n
large samples (which are certainly possible with e-mail and, in particular, adaptable, flexible ii
web-page-based surveys) do not mean anything unless they are representative and understanding' (
of a target population. The skewed nature of Internet use worldwide means cellent data by beinj
that general mailings will probably not be representative. This bias in sam- and able to engage
pling gives statistical work low 'power' and can undermine the ethics of a cannot achieve this 1
study by providing inadequate or incorrect data (see Mann and Stewart, 2001). nication - and that th
For instance, early tests of logical reasoning conducted online were probably The jury is still out
affected by the fact that at that time a large percentage of Internet users were committed to the re
computer scientists with extensive training in symbolic logic! There are ways equal to that product
round this - for instance researchers can target specific groups. One way for-

34
 Chris Mann
• group dynamics online - conformity, polarization, conflict, co-opera-
tion
• experimenting with online personae in MUDS and MOOS
• psychology of aggression online
• interpersonal relationships online - friendships/romance
• psychological impact of online pornography etc
• personal 'impression management' - personal Web pages etc
• impact of Internet use on state of health - Internet addiction
• support/altruism on the Net - especially with stigmatised groups
• gender roles, stereotypes, conflicts on the Internet
Research focusing on the impact of the Internet may be conducted using tradi-
tional methods - or using online methods. Both qualitative and quantitative re-
search methods in conventional research have a history of ethical challenges -
and ethical precepts - that have been developed over time (see Mann and
Stewart, 2000). We shall now turn to ethical issues that are raised once we
move these traditional research methods online.
2 Ethical issues linked to using the Internet as a tool to generate
data
Researchers may use the Internet as a tool to generate data on a wide range of
issues in many subject areas. In practical terms the Internet can be used di-
rectly - by asking participants to respond electronically to research queries. It
can also be used indirectly by gathering ongoing or archival messages or
'posts' arising from chat rooms or newsgroups.
Survey approaches
Given that only approximately 0.01% of the world's population were online at
the start of 2000, the patchiness of Internet access has clear implications for
research approaches that seek representative sampling. In statistical terms
large samples (which are certainly possible with e-mail and, in particular,
web-page-based surveys) do not mean anything unless they are representative
of a target population. The skewed nature of Internet use worldwide means
that general mailings will probably not be representative. This bias in sam-
pling gives statistical work low 'power' and can undermine the ethics of a
study by providing inadequate or incorrect data (see Mann and Stewart, 2001).
For instance, early tests of logical reasoning conducted online were probably
affected by the fact that at that time a large percentage of Internet users were
computer scientists with extensive training in symbolic logic! There are ways
round this - for instance researchers can target specific groups. One way for-
34
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
ward here is to use databases of names and addresses which have been gath-
ered about people without their consent - but this is an ethical quandary in
itself.
Researchers may also ask whether is it ethical to use a research method
that does not represent the many groups of people and parts of the world with
no access to the Internet. It could be argued, for instance, that scientific in-
quiry would be more focused on the interests of the information rich than the
information poor - which could reinforce existing social divisions between the
two.
Experiments
At this point in time experimental work conducted online is only seen to be
good science - and hence ethical - if it is comparable in terms of results to real
life laboratory work. Results in this area are at an early stage but seem positive
(Binbaum, 2000). Some research presenting online participants with cartoon-
like schematic images of human bodies or faces produced similar reponses to
laboratory work even working cross-culturally. In one study the closeness in
answers when responding to 'the attractiveness of the female form' suggested
'responses were due to the same psychological variables and that there was no
effect of experimental medium' (Senior and Smith, 1999, p.443).
It has also been suggested that appropriate online studies may be more
ethical than face-to face experiments because the Internet removes 'the most
obvious source of coercion' in the experiment - that is the physical presence of
the researcher. The researcher's presence may lead someone to continue with
an experiment even though they feel uncomfortable or find the experiment un-
rewarding. So to lose this negative aspect of face-to-face work is seen to be a
'nontrivial benefit of Internet-based research' (Nosek et al, 2002, p. 162).
Qualitative interviews
The exact opposite concern regarding the presence of the researcher comes
into play when considering the 'good science' aspects of qualitative interview-
ing. In qualitative research the face-to-face interviewer is, ideally a 'smart,
adaptable, flexible instrument who can respond to situations with skill, tact,
and understanding' (Seidman, 1991: 16). Such an interviewer would evoke ex-
cellent data by being a careful listener, non-judgemental, perceptive, focused
and able to engage with interviewee(s). The fear is that online interviewing
cannot achieve this level of highly interactive, rich and spontaneous commu-
nication - and that the data produced will be inferior and so ethically unsound.
The jury is still out about this - but many believe that once participants are
committed to the research, online interviewers can gather data which is the
equal to that produced face to face (see Mann and Stewart, 2000 and 2001).
35
 Chris Mann
However, the possibly 'coercive' aspects of the research process - the im-
pact of power relations between people - is also a feature of all kinds of inter-
viewing techniques. Working face-to-face, status, age, gender and ethnicity
limit the sort of relationship that can be developed with participants and may
also restrict access to research settings and to data. Online, these limits need
not apply and excellent data may be produced as a result. However, although
the potential for reducing power differentials seems to be a bonus for Internet
research - the possibility of manipulating power relations online is an ethical
minefield. The Internet is a medium which allows for deception - and re-
searchers face ethical decisions regarding the amount of information about
themselves they should make known. The psychiatrist who masqueraded as a
woman to tap intimate confessional stories is a case in point. His persona,
known as Joan, was adopted when he discovered that women were much more
open and intimate with him when he changed the power differential between
them. As a man - and with status as a psychiatrist - he may have gathered less
data than he did in his computer identity as a handicapped woman. But when
his true identity was revealed the women he had talked to were aghast and saw
him as a cheat and a fraud (Van Gelder, 1991).
Unobtrusive observation
Within traditional social science research the general rule is that behaviour in
public places is a legitimate object of scrutiny for the social researcher,
whereas that in private is not, unless consent is given. However, ethical com-
mittees may allow unobtrusive observation of behaviour performed in the
public domain to go ahead without consent if there is no risk to participants -
and if the researcher can show that it is essential for the interaction under scru-
tiny to remain 'natural' and not contaminated by the researcher's agenda. This
research approach, variously called naturalistic studies or participant observa-
tion, is seen to move easily to the Internet (see Mann and Stewart, 200o). It
can open up new possibilities because researchers can infiltrate newsgroups
and chatrooms and 'watch' what is going on while pretending to be one of the
group - it is temptingly easy to gather information without people having any
idea that they are part of a research project. In real life it may be impossible to
carry off membership of some groups (even your haircut might forbid it) but
working online researchers can enter many kinds of groups without difficulty.
However, while there is no doubt that as a practical method unobserved ob-
servation is ideally suited to Internet research - and may garner excellent data
- there are ethical drawbacks. In fact it is in this area above all that three of the
key ethical debates about Internet research arise; these are public-private is-
sues, the ownership of one's own words, and concepts of risk. We shall now
look at these debates in more detail.
36
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
3 Key ethical debates
(a) The public-private debate
A key issue in Internet research is whether the online world is a 'public' or 'pri-
vate' place - or in more sophisticated formulations 'private places in a public
forum'. One definition of 'private' is that an individual can reasonably expect
that no observation or recording is taking place. Is cyberspace a context within
which anyone can "reasonably expect" that no researcher is observing or re-
cording what you say? Certainly the naive Internet user is inclined to think
that messages they circulate are only read by people like themselves. Whereas
in fact, as we know, they can be read by all kinds of people.
"Don't tell my boss about my cocaine habit" is typical of this kind of In-
ternet posting, shared only with ten million of one's closest friends (Covering-
ton, 1995, p.33).
But even when individuals are not being particularly indiscrete they may
still be taken aback to find that a researcher is not only reading their messages
but also keeping copies of what they say.
Let us look at differences between research online and research in situa-
tions where people are in 'public' situations in real life. In real life naturalistic
observation in public settings usually does not require consent. Why is this?
Partly it is the sheer difficulty of getting consent from, for instance, a football
crowd or people in a church. Partly because it is assumed that if someone is
doing something in public they don't mind other people seeing them doing it.
And even if someone is 'caught out' doing something silly in public by a
nameless person in the crowd who doesn't know them and can't follow it up -
well it's hard luck but it doesn't matter that much. Thus the freedom given by
not being known in a public place is important.
Real life certainly has 'private spaces in public places'. There are physical
clues to this - the way seats are grouped in a hotel lounge, the plastic hoods
sometimes found over public phones - all give tacit privacy. There are also
customs about privacy. If you are having a picnic on a beach you would not
expect someone to join you without invitation - or even to walk across the
patch of sand that is your 'tablecloth' People in public life might see you and
hear you but the world goes on much of the time as if they did not. If a couple
are having an argument at the next table to you in a restaurant they rarely wel-
come you leaning over to give advice.
So let us consider research in a public place. In the real world someone
with a notebook or a good memory can be watching what's going on in a pub-
lic area (can even be part of what's happening) and can go home and write an
interesting paper on, for instance, mating rituals in a bar or mobile phone rage
in a theatre. But let us take this further. How would you feel about this re-
37
 Chris Mann
search activity if the researcher was tapeing the argument in the restaurant or
videoing the flirting in the bar? What is different here? Why does this feel
much more like an invasion of privacy? These are important questions be-
cause in virtual worlds everything which constitutes the world - that is the text
through which virtual worlds exist - can be recorded by the researcher. Ob-
serving virtual worlds is not an impressionistic method - it lays bare every-
thing that happens. In virtual worlds there are often references to town halls,
villages and cafes - communal spaces - suggesting that the interaction which
occurs within them is also public - and thus falls within the remit of observa-
tional research. But virtual worlds also have their private areas and there is
some disagreement about the extent to which this should be taken into ac-
count.
Internet researchers can take diametrically different approaches in the
public-private debate. A l l we can do here is to show the range of opinion. On
one hand, some people believe that making notes of online conversations is
eavesdropping and that this is ethically unsound however it is done. They
would probably agree with Goffman that a 'conversation' includes
the right of a set of individuals once engaged in talk to have their circle
protected from entrance and overhearing by others (Goffinan 1971:64).
The offence of overhearing is, in Goffman's view of social life, a violation. It
takes from an individual information not intended to be overheard, it pene-
trates territory the speakers have claimed as their own, and it defiles that terri-
tory by intruding on it. But Cavanagh (2000), who looked in depth at
Goffman's theories in relation to Internet use, used the status of "lurkers" to
highlight differences in online communication. To 'listen in' on online discus-
sions is at the very least tolerated - indeed many groups prefer people to listen
in to the group for a while before they leap in with both feet and make nai've
comments. When lurkers do 'own up' to their presence they usually receive a
warm welcome and enter fully into the community. Cavanagh believes that
such tolerance only makes sense if you see Internet interactions as occurring
within a public arena - you would get a different reaction if you suddenly an-
nounced your presence in someone's telephone conversation. This would be
seen as eavesdropping or snooping in a 'private' conversation.
Jones (1994) takes this position further. He questions whether the stress
on public/privacy differences in ethics guidelines make sense in a context
where rules about privacy and conditions relating to privacy are various, in-
consistent and not always apparent. He suggests that "forms of social life" in
cyberspace are significantly different from those in real life. They:
• are far more ephemeral
• lack territorial boundaries
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
• demand little in the way of individual commitment or identification
• are often open to anyone
• demand no rite of passage
• have little in the way of common tradition or heritage
• make it possible to link data sources in a way that reveals far more
about a subject than what he or she might "voluntarily consent" to.
He concludes by saying that it is these features that make such groups fasc
nating subjects to study - and that the application of rule based ethics with n
gard to protecting privacy will make it highly likely that they won't be studiei
For instance, if rules of informed consent are applied we'd need to:
• ascertain someone's identity (in a setting where the 'self is unstable)
• spend a great deal of time defining public and private (in a setting
where these factors are blurred)
• inform people of the nature of the research (so changing/ inhibiting it'
character)
• find ways to let people withdraw (in a setting where you can't banish then
And he asks: Should we really impose the burden of such rigid guidelines c
those most likely to increase our understanding of these new forms of life?
(b) The ownership of words debate
The second debate is about the 'public' or 'private' status of the words that ii
dividuals write and send to different Internet sites - basically it comes down
whether people have a right to withhold permission for their words to be us<
by others. The key question in this debate is - who owns the words that appe
online?
Do posts belong to the poster (author), electronic group (community),
any observer (including researchers)? (Sixsmith and Murray, 2001, p.429)
Is it the poster?
There are two ways of looking at this - a pragmatic/legal one - and a person
one.
Legal
One view is that all computer messages are published written material and th
to quote from this material without crediting the author is a violation of cop
right. However, i f we each fully owned our email messages no one could dow
load or view them. In sending the message there is an 'implied licence' to rea
or even archive, the information it contains. In addition, 'fair use' clauses with
copyright law allow a certain amount of material to be published if it can
shown this would be to the best advantage of all concerned. So - as with so mu
of Internet legality - this is very vague - and returns us to the purely ethical.
 Chris Mann
Personal
In the social sciences - and particularly in qualitative research and oral history
- there is an ongoing debate about the ownership of words and whether people
will 'lose their voice' i f a researcher takes over their words. In textual research
the researcher places a framework of analysis on someone else's story. The
danger is that people may have their views misrepresented or taken out of con-
text by researchers. In this situation, as Sharf asked (1999) - whose story is it
now? How has the story been changed by selecting bits for evidence or illus-
tration? Even if participants have given consent to research there is a fear they
may feel they have lost control of their identity when they see their narratives
interpreted by others. This is made worse if people are unaware that their mes-
sages are being analyzed until the results of the research are published. People
who feel that individuals' own their own words, even online, think that using
another's words in a research study without seeking permission is an invasion
of privacy. They are critical of those who 'harvest' the words of unsuspecting
people for their own profit and self-aggrandizement (Sharf, 1999)
Is it the electronic group?
One longstanding newsgroup moderator talked of the 'shock' that occurred
when a writer deleted several years worth of their own posts - making
the fabric of recorded conversations, the entire history of the [group's]
discourse...look math-eaten' (Rheingold 1993, p.36 cited in Sixsmith and
Murray 2001)
In this view the action taken by an individual showing he 'owned' his mes-
sages destroyed the integrity of the discussion and the communal identity of
the group.
Is it the researcher?
From a research point of view it is generally accepted that while archival ma-
terial collected from television, public records, radio, and published printed
works might need to be referenced to the media source - it does not need the
personal consent of the individual to use it. If the Internet is grouped with
these other sources then no ethical or legal standards are breached in forego-
ing informed consent. Many researchers believe this is the case and argue that
newsgroups, chat rooms and so on are as publicly accessible as a television or
newspaper interview.
One flaw with this argument is that usually - in the public media - there's
an intermediary between the person writing and the reader. And that person
has responsible for the material presented to the public. In a newspaper article
the journalist will have had the responsibility of making sure comments are
mt
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
not inaccurate or untrue, or likely to invoke libel laws, or against the newpa-
per's ethical code of practice. Internet media rarely have this intermediary.
There is sometimes a moderator but the responsibility of that person is far
weaker than in other public media (Waern, 2001). In other words the re-
searcher is not accessing processed data - but raw data. There is no protective
intermediary between the person who wrote the original material and the re-
searcher.
Many researchers do not see this kind of quibble as a problem. There is a
widespread view that permission should not be sought for the recording and
analysis of publicly posted messages (ProjectH Research Group 1993-1994).
This debate is important. If material in a 'public' site belongs to an individual
or a group this has implications for a researcher. Permission to use this mate-
rial when results are disseminated may be necessary. In the view of some re-
searchers failing to reference posts and comments constitutes a form of
plagiarism and hence exploitation and asking for permission to quote names
or some other tag is the preferred route. But this permission may be hard - if
not impossible - to obtain in a venue where individuals may be transient - and
which is also used by people who may be seeking anonymity or trying out
new false personas. Some researchers take the robust approach that any mate-
rial appearing in a public site is freely accessible for anyone to use. Others feel
that just because particular online sources may be public, this does not mean
that people have waived their rights to remain anonymous, nor that the iden-
tity of an institution and/or list should be exposed.
If researchers feel that it is only ethical to protect sources which have
provided data without prior consent - then preparing work for dissemination
may be a lengthy -and ultimately a self-defeating process. First, real names,
nicknames, domain names, signatures and even ISPs may all need to be ad-
justed. Second, there may be attempts to lose demographic data which can
identify people. Third, the quotes themselves may give too much away in
terms of speech mannerisms or contextual material and some omissions may
need to be made.
But what will happen i f the researcher sets to work to disguise and distort
data to this degree? In some studies it may be possible to aggregate data and
treat it statistically (or with minimum detail) without losing its power - in
other studies the validity of the results will depend on the detail that has been
lost. These implications in terms of reporting results of an Internet based re-
search design suggest that consideration of dissemination is something that
should be something that is prioritised at the beginning not the end of a
project. As this will be anti-intuitive for many researchers it is a real but nec-
essary challenge for future research.
 Chris Mann
(c) Causing harm in Interne! research debate
As we discussed earlier 'not causing harm' is the major deontological rule that
has survived the loss of old certainties. Thus the ultimate question for Internet
research must be - what harm can it do? Can researchers take the position that
interacting online is:
rather like a video game, where real world responsibilities do not apply ... no
matter what they say or do, it cannot harm a real human being' (Coverington,
1995).
Kendall (1999) noted that the very word 'cyberspace' has a science fiction res-
onance - suggesting a tendency to see online worlds as independent realities
separate from real world environments and histories and the living bodies that
are susceptible to harm. In contrast, she points out that actually: 'Nobody lives
only in cyberspace' (ibid, p.70). Her view is that people move happily between
online and offline environments (just as they move happily between different
kinds of real life environments) and, throughout it all, they 'tend to perceive of
their identities and selves as integral and continuous' (ibid, p.60). Many re-
searchers acknowledge this link between the embodied thinking feeling per-
son sitting at the computer and the virtual aspects of that person interacting on
the screen and feel unable to renege on their responsibility to the 'whole' per-
son. Seen in this way they cannot deny that Internet research may cause harm.
4 Assessment of risk in Internet research
There seems no doubt that Internet research has risks; risks that are over and
above those that researchers in conventional research have to consider. Many
of these risks come about as a result of the technology used and although these
risks may be moderated by researchers there are still some real problems -
such as lack of data security - which await technical solutions. There are other
risks which we are only just becoming aware of. Psychologically it is very
possible that people 'out there' have come to harm through being involved in
online research in ways that are quite unknown to us. So which risks ARE we
aware of?
Technical risks
Lack of security: Computer system crashes, badly set-up networks, software
containing bugs, guessable passwords, viruses and hackers can all compro-
mise data
Lack of privacy: The fact that we have no control over our electronic commu-
nication when it's in transit - knowing that others can (and sometimes do) lis-
42
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
ten in to our electronic private conversations. Reminding ourselves that emaH
is not always destroyed when we press the delete key.
Legal risks
Lack of understanding of legal responsibities: People may see the Internet as
an uncensored, unpoliced environment but in fact researchers and participants
must obey many country-specific laws (such as Copyright laws and Data Pro-
tection legislation) even online. The lack of privacy means that if these laws
are broken people can find out. The lack of clarity about which legal systems
apply in cross-cultural research means it is difficult to know which laws will
apply.
Personal risks for participants
Lack of protection from harassment, abuse and deception: The online world
has its own forms of intimidation, harassment or threat and there are few sanc-
tions and little legal redress for anyone who has negative experiences while
participating in research online. In addition, playing with identity makes it
technically possible to defame others using rumour, innuendo or lies or to toy
with the emotions and trust of others.
Lack of debriefing possibilities: Some research methods may lead to anxiety
or stress but if researchers and subjects are geographically separated from
each other and from support networks it might not be possible to give ade-
quate debriefing.
Lack of protection from exposure: Security problems increase the potential for
exposure of the participant's real self, electronic self and/or their virtual com-
munity. This can lead to harm to reputation and self esteem - particularly
when sensitive topics and highly personal information are involved.
Lack of knowledge about the potential for exposure; Newcomers to the Inter-
net are not always aware of its public nature. The assumption of many partici-
pants is that messages posted to an electronic forum will be seen only by a
small number of likeminded people. There is also a temptation for people to
see discussion online as like 'a conversation on a train' and to open up in an
unguarded way:
Revelations about personal inadequacies, deviant preferences, past love affairs,
and serious personal problems ... have passed through the [computer
conferencing] system as private messages to strangers who were 'met' on the
system (Hilte and Turoff, 1993).
Lack of protection for the most vulnerable: The difficulty of controlling the
participation of children in research not designed for them - and the techno-
logical and methodological difficulties in acquiring informed consent from
43
 Chris Mann
children under 18, those with learning abilities, the elderly or institutionalised.
The relative anonymity of the Internet has allowed a wide variety of socially
disadvantaged and/or marginalised or stigmatised groups to express their feel-
ings and frustrations online in ways that are emotionally difficult - or socially
unwise - to do face-to-face. This has stimulated many Internet studies that
have focused on all kinds of marginalised groups. There are groups with con-
cealable stigmas such as infertile women, survivors of sexual abuse, recover-
ing drug addicts, people with non-mainstream sexualities, racists and so on.
And groups with visible stigmas such as obesity, physical disability and stut-
tering. In addition, psychology researchers have flagged that the Internet is a
good place to look for individuals with certain 'disorders' or 'psychiatric con-
ditions' - such as a tendency to depression or panic attacks. Using people with
serious psychiatric conditions in Internet research must be considered a case
of extreme risk.
It is in this context of risk that active researchers need to consider the re-
sponsibilities that they hold to participants.
J The way forward?
The Internet is a convenient and powerful research tool. It offers information
that was previously inaccessible - or, indeed, non-existent. Taking an ethical
position is very challenging but we can draw on ethical guidelines that have
been developing over years to pose some simple but systematic ethical probes
(adapted with thanks from Foster, 2001) to any Internet research proposal.
These probes address the main ethical dilemmas in the following terms:
Are we seeking to magnify the good?
Are we acting in ways that do not harm others?
Do we recognise the autonomy of others and acknowledge that they are
of equal worth to ourselves and should be treated so?
Each of these questions then lead on to more specific probes. The probes are
quite simple and clear as it is very important in ethics not to fudge the issues.
Are we seeking to magnify the good?
What question is the research project addressing
Is the research aiming at a goal which is good and desirable
What research methods will be used to achieve that goal
How will these methods be designed to ensure the results are reliable
How will the results of the research be disseminated
Are we acting in ways that do not harm others?
What is the level of risk to a participant?
How are risks assessed?
44
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
Do we recognise the autonomy of others and acknowledge that they are of
equal worth to ourselves and should be treated so?
Will informed consent be sought from participants?
What procedures to obtain consent will be followed?
How will confidentiality be respected?
These probes may seem simple and predictable. In fact, as we know, the sim-
plest query in ethics may lead us into very deep water. In addition, simple
probes when related to Internet research do not produce simple answers. Once
the broad ethical issues have been defined more specific questions relating to
the research could be addressed using the checklist below.
6 Checklist of ethical issues in Internet research
Technological background
• Do you have a good grasp of the technology involved in the method
you will use?
• Do you have access to institution-based technology experts with
whom to discuss the power and limits of the research medium?
• Will participants have the technical expertise needed for the study you
have in mind?
• How will you organise secure storage of data, destruction of data and
ownership of data?
Organising Informed Consent
Practical issues
• How will the consent form be accessed by participants and how will
they submit it?
Signature on consent form
• Under what name (real life/ pseudonym) will people sign the consent
form?
• Will the consent form have a hand-written signature? I f so how will
you organise this?
• Will the signature be submitted online - how will this be done? - how
will the authenticity of the signature be validated? How will the use of
an online signature be defended?
• What is the position with regard to the 'legally binding' nature of the
online signature?
45
 Chris Mann
Description of the research
• Will the aims and exact purpose(s) of the study, possible risks to par-
ticipants, the expected findings and the use to which such findings will
be put be made clear to the participants?
• Will the researcher(s) give full information about themselves?
• Will participants be informed fully about the methods of the research
from the outset?
I f the answer to any of the above is 'no', what kinds of information will be held
back or changed and why?
Clarity of description about research
• What efforts will be made to check i f people have understood the point
of the research and the research process?
• What efforts will be made to see that everyone understands the lan-
guage of the consent form?
• Will there be a chance for people to ask questions i f they are confused
and/or want clarity? How?(e.g. will a FAQs facility be available to an-
ticipate potential questions and concerns
Protection of privacy of research subjects.
• What assurances about confidentiality will be made?
• Will technology be used to secure confidentiality (e.g. passwords, en-
cryption etc)?
• Are participants identifiable - is there a link between the data and the
individual?
• IF YES - what forms of identity are involved (real names, pseudo-
nyms)
• Should pseudonyms in this study be treated as real identities?
• IF NO - how will personal data be treated to make it non-identifiable.
• [In traditional research this might involve the use of pseudonyms,
changing any identifiable personal details (including names of places,
institutions and times), assigning code numbers, secure storage of data
and destruction of such data often after a set period of time. Online
real names, user names, domain names, signatures and even ISPs may
all need to be adjusted.]
Working with newsgroups, online communities etc
• How will informed consent be arranged without intruding on the inter-
action of the group?
• Does the group have a policy about the use of members messages?
• Does the group have a moderator you can get permission from?
Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher
• Will you repeatedly advertise your presence as a researcher - or just
advertise it once?
• What arrangements will be made i f some members of the group won't
give their consent?
Participant risk
• What risks might be involved for participants in this study?
• What measures will be taken to reduce the likelihood of risk?
• Will children and young people be involved in the study?
• What arrangements will be made to protect children under 13?
• How will informed consent be arranged in anyone under 18 participates?
Withdrawal and new members
• What arrangements will be made to allow for withdrawal?
• How will withdrawal be handled?
• What arrangements will be made i f new people wish to enter the research?
Debriefing
• What arrangements will be made to address participants concerns that
arise during the study?
• What arrangements will be made to debrief participants at the end of
the study?
• Will these arrangements undermine promises of anonymity/confidentiality?
• What facilities would be available if participants suffer i l l effects from
the study?
Dissemination promises
• What degree of detail will be given about the identity of the partici-
pants and the venue of the research?
• Will this be made clear to participants before the study starts or will
permission be asked at the end?
Conclusions
In a new research area like the Internet researchers have the responsibility of
interpreting well established ethical guidelines used in conventional research
in ways that are appropriate to the new online conditions. It seems clear that
'avoiding harm' remains an ethical constant. In addition, Internet researchers
have additional moral obligations - to the research community. If the re-
searcher is careless or lacks expertise, disillusioned and abused respondents
may no longer be willing to participate in research projects. Some commenta-
tors have raised the issue of 'enthusiastic well meaning DIY types' (Nancar-
row et al, 2001) who collect data using 'the new fun toy' that is the Internet.
These people may not know the ethical rules of professional and other bodies
so may unwittingly break them. In some situations a junior person may be
47
 Chris Mann Generating data online: ethical concerns and challenges for the C21 researcher

asked to do the research rather than a trained researcher - a person who is tech-
nically but not ethically sawy. Some research instruments may be badly de-
signed and promises made to recipients may not be fulfilled - adding to
feelings of disillusionment and alarm. Increasingly chat rooms and news-
groups are starting to resent the intrusion of researchers who they feel come in
and 'strip the assets' of the group. This is bad science. For - while there are
many different ways to do research - a research method which leaves behind
bad feeling is morally suspect in terms of both participants and other research-
ers. Researchers who are guilty of negligence are acting in ways that will
harm others - not just the individuals they are working with - but also because
they close down opportunities for valuable research to be conducted in the fu-
ture.
Bibliography
Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (2001) "The reluctant respondent" in (eds.) Gubrium, J. And
Holstein, I. Handbook of interview Research, pp.515-535, London, Thousand
Oaks:Sage
Bimbaum, M. (2000) (ed.) Psychological Experiments on the Internet, Academic press, San
Diego
Cavanagh, A. (2000) "Behaviour in public?: ethics in online ethnography" in Research
Methodology Online, Issue 6.
Nancarrow, C. et al (2001) "A new research medium, new research populations and seven
deadly sins for Internet researchers" pp.136-149 in ul-Haq, Rand Mann, C. (eds.)
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Volume 4, Number 3, Special
Issue, Research in Cyberspace.
Nosek, B. and Greenwald A. (2002) "E-Research: Ethics, security, design, and control in
Psychological research on the Internet" in Journal of Social Issues, Vol 58, No 1.
pp.I61-176.
Rheingold, H (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the electric frontier. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. Columbia University: Teacher's
College.
Senior, C. and Smith, M. (1999) "The Internet... a possible research tool?" in Psychologist,
12, pp.442-44.
Sharf, B. (1999) "Beyond N etiquette, The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the
Internet" pp.243-256 in Jones, S Doing Internet Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks
Sixsmith J. and Murray C. (2001) "Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of Internet
posts and archives" in Qualitative Health Research, Vol.11, No.3, May
Smith, M. and Leigh, B. (1997) "Virtual subjects: using the Internet as an alternative source of
subjects and research environment." Behaviour, Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 1997, 29(4), 496-505.
Van Gelder, L. (1991). "The strange case of the electronic lover." in C. Dunlop and R. filing
(eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. New
York: Academic Press.
CHRIS MANN

Coverington, M (1995) "Design and implementation of a campus computer ethics policy" in Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, England
ccm 10@cam.ac.uk
Internet research Electronic Networking Applications and Policy. Vol.5. No 4, pp.31-
41.
Foster, C. (2001) The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans. Cambridge University Press
Goffman, E (1971) Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, Penguin:
Harmondsworth.
Hiltz, S. and TurofF, M. (1993). The Network Nation: Human communication via computer.
Reading, MA: MIT Press.
http://www.emerald-library.com/brev/17204ccl.htm
Jones, A. (1994) "The Ethics of Research in Cyberspace" in Internet Research, Vol. 4, No. 3,
1994, pp. 30-35.
Kendall, L. (1999). "Recontextualizing cyberspace: Methodological considerations for on-line
research", in (ed.) S. Jones, Doing Internet Research pp. 57-75. Thousand Oaks, CA,
and London: Sage.
Mann, C and Stewart, F. (2000) Using the Internet in Qualitative Research: A Handbook for
Researching Online. New Technologies for Social Research series, pp. 39-62.
London: Sage.
(2001) 'Internet Interviewing' in Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (eds.) Handbook of
Interview Research. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

48 49